Navigate:

Ozone decision: The final green straw?

The administration is putting off efforts to tighten the EPA's ozone rule until the 2013 cycle. |
AP Photo
Close

In fact, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works clean air subcommittee, later announced that he intends to hold a hearing on the White House's decision. "This decision leaves me with more questions than answers," he said.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said in a statement that she was "disappointed" but also "heartened" by Obama's announcement.

Text Size

-

+

reset

"I strongly believe that protecting air quality based on the science leads to more job growth because it brings so many positive health benefits to our workers," Boxer said. "Although I am disappointed with this decision to delay action, I am heartened by the president's commitment to vigorously oppose any efforts to dismantle the Clean Air Act and the progress that we have made."

But Republicans and industry officials are just as forcefully suggesting that Obama needs to use the ozone decision as a precedent.

“Absolutely, we think the announcement today is very good news for the economy,” American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard said in an interview. “And we hope it’s a new direction and positive sign that the administration understands that many of these regulatory proposals have had a chilling effect on job creation.”

API and other major business and industry groups met last month with White House chief of staff Bill Daley and other administration officials about the ozone rule. “They’ve heard our message now with this,” Gerard said.

Just this week, Obama — in a response to a request by House Speaker John Boehner to identify upcoming regulations with an estimated annual cost topping $1 billion — said the ozone rule was the most expensive of them all, with an estimated cost between $19 billion and $90 billion per year.

Boehner spokesman Mike Steel wrote that Friday’s decision “is certainly a good first step, and we’re glad that the White House responded to the speaker’s letter and recognized the job-killing impact of this particular regulation. But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping Washington Democrats’ agenda of tax hikes, more government ‘stimulus’ spending and increased regulations — which are all making it harder to create more American jobs.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor last week announced plans to hold votes this fall to repeal the administration's "10 most harmful job-destroying regulations," including seven from the EPA. That had included penciling in a winter vote repealing the ozone rule.

Talia Buford contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 4:19 p.m. on September 2, 2011.

The American public has been very clear with this administration: we care about jobs. The decision to retreat on ozone standards may not have been an easy one for our President- he does have two young daughters who will need a planet on which to live- but it is the only decision that the political climate would allow. You will notice in his decision to pursue lawsuits against 17 banks, that justice comes before jobs, followed by the environment. In an autocratic system, President Obama could simply act however he saw fit. But alas, we live in a democracy.

Oh “puleeze.” Everyone is so tired of this game. "Final green straw?" - nope. There is never a "Final green straw" because they will always vote partisan Democrat.

Everyone knows that the “enviro’s” / green is just another code word for mostly “Progressives” which is another code word for mostly Marxists, non-taxpayers, welfare parasites & Left Wing Socialists.

The Communist Party of America endorses and votes for the Democrat candidate every single election year regardless - and has for many, many decades and underpins and allies with the entire Left Wing Cabal which makes up the core base cadre of the Democrat party.

In the end of COURSE they are going to vote for him - that is never even a serious question. This is simply a game. Ultimately, Obama and any Democrat can simply ignore them and do what he wants and what he “must” – and everyone knows it.

Over at the Obama White House the mood is devolving into full scale, abject panic do to the economic environment, in this next election cycle. Yes, Obama decided to turn tail and run, when faced with the possibility of rolling blackouts next summer, to go with his no growth, high unemployment green economy. Meanwhile, his economically illiterate, Marxist, environmental waco constituency, having been mugged by reality will have no choice, but to slavishly support "The One". Where else are they going to go? The Greeners are hollow people anyway, who substitute worship of the earth, for a soul.

Who will the Greens support? Surely they understand the notion that a tactical retreat in the face of a certain and overwhelming defeat is acceptable, allowing the President to regroup whatever fair weather support is left to try to fight another day.

Standing on principle is admirable, but in this environment, one stands for about fifteen seconds and accomplishes nothing.

Obama is not much, but he is all the Greens have got, or are likely to have for a long time. Cut him loose and that will be the end of their voice in our lifetime.

The overwhelming impression is that these environmental groups are motivated more by an anti-capitalism ideology than by real science, and that their agenda will never be fulfilled unless this country's economic system is destroyed.

Global warming is a Rockefeller depopulationary eugenical hoax. The Eco-fascists goal is to kill 90% of the human race. The super-rich eco-loons are spoiled children living off George Soros' fake paper money teat. Obama must fire Sunstein, Jackson, Clinton, Geithner, just about everyone. The only way he can survive politically if he turned into my puppet instead of a Bilderberger puppet. I warned him about all of this when he started. I'm sure he is too stupid to listen to me since his is just an affirmative action Manchurian candidate. He considers people like me the enemy. What a moron, dumber than Bush, and that's pretty dumb.

I voted for him in the last election. His is on the verge of losing my vote. Yes, jobs are important but giving into industry just to create jobs is not the answer. I remember rivers lined with garbage dumps flowing with sewage. I live in a metropolitan area where it is not uncommon to have ozone alerts and smog hanging over the city for days on end. Look at all of the pretty pictures of China's industrial cities. I do not have a definite answer for all of the problems we are facing. I do believe deeply business should pay to do business in the US and not for us to pay them to do business with US. We have given into to business demands for to long. If we do not have a strong leader who can make strong stand for what is right and not expedient, we might live long enough to see a bright future for humanity.

I voted for Obama once, not believing in Hope but fearful of McCain/Palin. Now that Obama has altogether abandoned social progress, I will resort to the Green candidate. (As a green libertarian, I would support Paul if he would just once speak up for social libertarianism.)

The only thing dumber than a liberal voting for Obama in 2012 is MoveOn's support for him in 2008, for which they should take their share of blame for getting this guy elected.

If Obama is president for another four years, he will advance conservative agendas in a much more long-lasting way than ANYONE else. Not only will the legislation be identical, he will have further weakened

I was a hardcore libertarian until I finally realized that the free market will never step up for the environment. By the time enough people care about the environment to invest in it, the planet will be an ugly place indeed.

You're confusing greens with Greens, just as most people confuse libertarians with Libertarians. I'm green, and whereas I'm as union-busting as any Republican, I concede that only the federal government can clean up our environment.

It's not that a specific EPA regulation directly caused the loss of jobs. The government always talks about confidence, because businesses may not invest if they are scared of some big, new government regulation coming along. Perhaps if Obama fosters a business friendly climate, then he resume this EPA regulation at a later time.